Is it just as racist to SUPPORT someone based on race; as it is to OPPOSE someone based on race

One problem with the word racism is that it means one thing but is used in so many different ways! The DEFINITION of racism goes like this (and read closely): "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others"! Now that seems about what most people would consider racism to be on the surface of it. But let's take an example: I'm looking at the mens finals in the 100 meter race in the Olympics and I can't help to notice that all the runners are black! Now I already know that practicing this sport is common in 99% of the world so there's no difference in society, culture or condition that would benefit runners from Caribbean islands and America. What they all have in common though is that they're all black! Naturally I could make the statement "Blacks are better at running"! That statement is expressing "a belief that inherent differences among various human races determine individual achievement"! The very definition of racism! Yet what I'm saying is just fundamental common sense! No white man have ever ran under 10 seconds in a 100 meter race but plenty of black men has done that. The definitions says that "usually" it's to say one's own race is superior but it's not a requirement. So apparently being racist also sometimes cover having common sense ! I also can't say that a black person is better at withstanding high levels of UV sunlight because they're black. No I'd have to make up some other explanation to why they're better at shielding themselves against the sun than me. And that it's scientifically proven that dark skin protects better against UV sunlight and that skin cancer is much more common in white people than in black people well that I'd have to just completely ignore because otherwise I'm a racist! I express the "belief" or in this case "scientifically proven" idea that one race is better than another at something and that's what the term racism describes. Of course when most people think of the word racism they don't think of someone expressing common sense or scientificly proven facts but apparently the word covers that as well! The statement "I don't like you because your black" would most people consider a racist comment. But it doesn't express anything about one race being better than another and therefore doesn't qualify as a racism. If the black person asked "why don't you like black people?" and he would get the answer "because you're less worth than us" then that would be a racist comment! With this little monologue I hope to shred some light over the differences of what the word racism means and how it's used! It's not a direct response to the title "Wisconsin State Fair Mob Violence" but it's relevant to the original subject.

@ Gillipig: Only nit pickers like Scotty refer to racism in the positive sense (ie its just as racist to make a positive assertion based on race as it is a negative one).

Pragmatically this is a failed concept because in the real world seldom is there a negative consequence on anyone because of a positive racist remark. Conversaly there is often signifcant negative consequences for people because of negative racist comments/stances.

For example:- How many white people are negatively impacted by saying: "Black people are good sprinters"?vs- How many black people are negatively impacted by saying: "Black people are less astute buisnesspeople"?

The concept of 'race' was created some 500 years ago by Europeans as 'legitimate justification' for slavery of Africans and the domination of indigenous populations in colonial lands - In the early years, 'race' was modelled along the lines of the 'closeness' to God, with, ofcourse, white men being on top of the heirarchial order, followed by various other 'races' to fit into agendas of the time.

I've put the word 'race' in quotations because there is no such thing as 'race' - It is a social construct based on arbitary physical differences (mainly skin colour) - There is no scientific basis behind such a conception. If you cut us all open, we all bleed red blood (infact, it makes more sense scientifically to seperate humans based on different blood types; A-, A+, B-, B+, O- etc etc - But ofcourse we know that is stupid, and as blood types cut across different 'races' (or arbitary physical differences) it is not convienient for us to do so. Another way to point out the fallacy of 'race' is the case where many North American Indigenous peoples born in the early 20th century ended up with a different 'race' on their death certificate than they had on their birth certificate. How can one spontaneously change race? Maybe because its a social construct in the first place.

Now - Having said that it is a social construct, we can not ignore the fact that 'race' has had a very real affect on social relations. 500 years of conditioning has created cultures where we believe these inherent differences are based on some kind of fact. You also have to look at the fact that in many cases, different 'races' have ended up indentifying themselves through the stereotypes and assertions placed on them by 500 years of social conditioning.

It's quite rich that 'white' people are now complaining about other 'races' using the race card - Europeans created the environment and social conditioning that created race (and directly benefited for over 450 years) - Now that we are in an era when racist discrimination is no longer tolerated (by in large), we have found other 'races' taking advantage of a 500 year old social construct. Ideally I would love to see an environment where 'race' is completely irrelevant; unfortunately we are not there yet, but in the mean time you can not be suprised when a 'racial' group starts taking advantage of a social construct that was first created to demean, enslave and undermine their very existance.

john9blue wrote:the scientific classification of animals is also a human construct. that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or make it less valid as a scientific field of study.

It has all to do with 'who' makes the classifications, and for what purpose. Animals do not name themselves - We project a name onto them. In many circumstances, the classifications of animals has stemmed from our interpretation of which animals are to be exploited, eaten, or left alone, all of which is based on a heirarchy created to fulfil the needs and wants of the dominant hegemon.

In many ways, different 'races' did not name themselves, they had the classification projected onto them, also based on the hierarchy created to fulfil the needs and wants of the dominant hegemon.

Yes, the two disciplines are similar - Just because I am pointing out the fallacy in the classification of human 'races' does not mean that there is not inherent domination involved in our classification of other living things (It's just that this domination is harder to be seen and heard, because we are no longer equipped with those sensory abilities)

john9blue wrote:the scientific classification of animals is also a human construct. that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or make it less valid as a scientific field of study.

It has all to do with 'who' makes the classifications, and for what purpose. Animals do not name themselves - We project a name onto them. In many circumstances, the classifications of animals has stemmed from our interpretation of which animals are to be exploited, eaten, or left alone, all of which is based on a heirarchy created to fulfil the needs and wants of the dominant hegemon.

In many ways, different 'races' did not name themselves, they had the classification projected onto them, also based on the hierarchy created to fulfil the needs and wants of the dominant hegemon.

Yes, the two disciplines are similar - Just because I am pointing out the fallacy in the classification of human 'races' does not mean that there is not inherent domination involved in our classification of other living things (It's just that this domination is harder to be seen and heard, because we are no longer equipped with those sensory abilities)

why does the identity of the person making the classification, and their purpose, matter?

and why do you think that all classification has to be about a hierarchy of domination? we recently reclassified pluto as a satellite instead of a planet; did we do that because of some selfish motivation?

maybe i'm misunderstanding your point... are you saying that racial categories have no basis in reality, and are entirely abstract?

natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?

Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"

john9blue wrote:the scientific classification of animals is also a human construct. that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or make it less valid as a scientific field of study.

It has all to do with 'who' makes the classifications, and for what purpose. Animals do not name themselves - We project a name onto them. In many circumstances, the classifications of animals has stemmed from our interpretation of which animals are to be exploited, eaten, or left alone, all of which is based on a heirarchy created to fulfil the needs and wants of the dominant hegemon.

In many ways, different 'races' did not name themselves, they had the classification projected onto them, also based on the hierarchy created to fulfil the needs and wants of the dominant hegemon.

Yes, the two disciplines are similar - Just because I am pointing out the fallacy in the classification of human 'races' does not mean that there is not inherent domination involved in our classification of other living things (It's just that this domination is harder to be seen and heard, because we are no longer equipped with those sensory abilities)

why does the identity of the person making the classification, and their purpose, matter?

Because therein belies the motives, objectivity and capabilities.

john9blue wrote:maybe i'm misunderstanding your point... are you saying that racial categories have no basis in reality, and are entirely abstract?

Precisely correct.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

see if you can't find cultural and biological aspects of race in the first paragraph.

This has nothing to do with "trivial definitions", but I wouldn't expect you to recognize that.

How about this statement: "Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all people belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens."

And this: "As people define and put about different conceptions of race, they actively create contrasting social realities through which racial categorization is achieved in varied ways.[15] In this sense, races are said to be social constructs.[16][17] These constructs can develop within various legal,[15][18] economic,[18] and sociopolitical[19][20] contexts"

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

see if you can't find cultural and biological aspects of race in the first paragraph.

This has nothing to do with "trivial definitions", but I wouldn't expect you to recognize that.

How about this statement: "Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all people belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens."

And this: "As people define and put about different conceptions of race, they actively create contrasting social realities through which racial categorization is achieved in varied ways.[15] In this sense, races are said to be social constructs.[16][17] These constructs can develop within various legal,[15][18] economic,[18] and sociopolitical[19][20] contexts"

those are both true. there's definitely aspects of race and racial traits/differences that are constructed by society. i'm not saying that constructed racial categories/traits don't exist, i'm saying that they have a real, biological basis (which doesn't make them necessarily correct).

natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?

Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqhdPr_RvSQ"The Tea Party is going to do whatever it needs to do to get this black man outta the White House" Yes Morgan, this has nothing to do with the economy or Obama's 32% approval rating on it, nothing to do with his lack of leadership, or 15 other major factors. It's all because of the color of his skin. Peris Morgans goes even further, saying he would like to see Obama give Republicans a bloody nose. CIVILITY POLICE!!!!!! omg omg omg !

Hypocrite alert, not just for Peirs, but also for Freeman, who not too long ago said thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2d2SzRZvsQ"I'm gonna stop calling you a white man, and you stop calling me a black man." Freeman should have taken his own advice.

Bringing up racism on false pretense is complete degeneration of the issues and shut down to all thinking.

When Ebony asked actor Samuel L. Jackson where he stood, his answer raised some eyebrows. Obama's "message didn't mean sh*t to me," Jackson said, according to the New York Post. "I just hoped he would do some of what he said he was gonna do." Implying that Obama has not yet been able to behave like a "scary" "n*gga," Jackson said he hopes Obama will be more "scary" in his second term, "cuz he ain't gotta worry about getting re-elected." "I voted for Barack because he was black," Jackson said.

Samuel L. Jackson believes Obama's character, policies and agenda are irrelevant. Jackson said he voted for Obama because he is black.

“I voted for Barack because he was black. ’Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them,”

Well done: You and your "american thinker" blogger missed the point of his statement and immediately jumped on the sound bite.

The blogger being an american thinker is almost too ironic

I thought it was well done for sharing 2 links from 2 different points of view, but none of your post deals with the actual topic at hand, so........yeah great idea to focus solely on the way I shared the racist comments.

You miss my point, Jackson's point, and even your own. If you vote for someone just because they look like you, then it goes without saying that their policy, agenda, and campaign promises don't matter....which is....wait for it.....what the soundbyte/truth of the comment is.

And fyi, the American thinker is just the name of the website, and thinking is something you have not done yet if you think that me sharing the entire articles, from both sides, is "immediately jumping on a soundbyte". What it is doing is pointing out blatant racism.

Ok PS, there are a couple of things that jump up at me from the links and your/the bloggers comments on the situation; some are obvious, some not so much:

- Sammy is none too smart (obvious)- His main point is not that he voted for Obama because he is black but the [fallaciously founded] argument that two wrongs make a right: rephrasing... "dem der white folk wont vote for a black man so ima cancel dem out and not vote for a white man, herpa-dee-derp".

Samual is an idiot, but it doesnt make him racist for supporting a black man (your premise).